Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-01-21 Meeting PacketAgenda Transportation Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota Council Chambers Thursday, January 21, 2016 6:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting of December 17, 2015 V.Community Comment During "Community Comment," t he Board/Commission will invite resi dent s to share r elevant i ssues or concerns. Individuals must l i mi t t heir comments to three mi nutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same i ssue in t he int erest of time and topic. Gener al ly speaking, i tems that ar e elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed dur i ng Communit y Comment. Indi vi dual s should not expect the Chai r or Boar d/Commission Member s to respond to t heir comment s tonight. Instead, the Board/Commi ssion might refer the mat ter to st a% for consi derat i on at a future meeting. VI.Reports/Recommendations A.Tra'c Safety Process Rev iew Committee B.Tra'c Safety Report of Ja nuary 6, 2016 VII.Correspondence And Petitions VIII.Chair And Member Comments A.Proposed Standing Item: 2016 Work Plan Upda tes IX.Sta 4 Comments A.Sta4 Comments for Janua ry 2016 X.Calendar Of Events A.Schedule of Meeting a nd E v ent Dates XI.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortabl e bei ng part of the publi c proc ess . If you need as s is tanc e i n the way of heari ng am pli 7c ation, an interpreter, large-print doc um ents or s om ethi ng els e, pleas e c al l 952-927-8861 72 ho urs in advance of the m eeting. Date: January 21, 2016 Agenda Item #: IV.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Minutes From:Sharon Allis on - Engineering Spec ialis t Item Activity: Subject:Ap p ro val o f Minutes - Regular Meeting of Dec emb er 17, 2015 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the meeting minutes of the regular Edina Transportation Commission meeting of December 17, 2015. INTRODUCTION: ATTACHMENTS: Description Minutes : Dec. 17, 2015 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 1 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Transportation Commission Community Room December 17, 2015, 6:00 p.m. I. Call To Order Chair Bass called the meeting to order. II. Roll Call Answering roll call were members Bass, Boettge, Ding, Iyer, LaForce, Loeffelholz, Nelson, Olson, Ruehl, and Spanhake. Absent at roll call were member Janovy. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member LaForce approving the meeting agenda. All voted aye. Motion carried IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Motion was made by member LaForce and seconded by member Iyer approving the edited Nov. 17, 2015, minutes. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. Special Recognitions and Presentations V.A. Presentation: Local Circulator Options for Edina Mr. Dave Jacobson and Mr. Matt Fyten with SouthWest Transit (SWT) explained the general services their company offered and the Prime Service they recently began providing to the City of Eden Prairie. Also in attendance were Mr. Charles Corcoran and Mr. Dave Simoneau with SWT. Mr. Jacobson said SouthWest Transit is an opt-out of the Met Council (Metro Transit) commuter service. They provide transportation to downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota and special services to municipalities such as cities of Eden Prairie and Plymouth, and Carver County. Mr. Jacobson said they can assist Edina with planning and expert advice; for example, they could help to identify private providers. He said SWT would not be able provide transportation services to Edina because Edina isn’t an opt-out city (legislative action would be required to make this change). Mr. Fyten reviewed the current transit services in Edina. Metro Transit’s high frequency routes were the Southdale area and the 50th & France area to downtown Minneapolis. The hours of operation are 4 a.m. to 2 a.m. He said there are connecting routes to Bloomington and the Mall of America from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Fyten said SWT operates one commuter route that runs through Edina in the mornings and evenings. Additionally, Transit Link operates Dial-A-Ride 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. in Edina and frequent locations are the Community Center, Southdale, Valley View Middle School and Gallagher’s Apartment. Mr. Jacobson asked what was Edina’s objective and some examples mentioned were optional transportation for residents in new housing in the Southdale area to get around the surrounding area; transportation for seniors that the ETC began working on a few years ago; transportation for low income Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 2 youths that attend Edina Schools for after school activities; and, the City has started doing small area planning around commercial nodes and they need to plan an option for moving people around other than by cars. Mr. Fyten explained the Prime Service that they offer to City of Eden Prairie. He said they offer curb-to- curb drop-off and pick-up and customers can either call, schedule a ride online or via smartphone for $3, plus $1 for transfer to another route. He said the average wait time is 15-20 minutes, plus another 20-30 minutes to your destination because they pick up other customers along the way. The customer base includes seniors because they marketed directly to them and a fair number of people in the 20-50 age range. He said during the football season it is used heavily after football practice. Mr. Fyten said it is difficult to plan suburban routes, especially fixed routes, and after much discussion, they decided to do the Eden Prairie Prime Service. He said initially they operated from 6:30 a.m. to 10 p.m. but eventually cut back to 6:30 p.m. and this schedule is working better. Mr. Jacobson said the cost of buses like the ones used for Dial-A-Ride is $85,000 and bigger buses for fixed routes are $300,000. He said the smaller buses would be more appropriate. He said there is legislation that makes it possible to receive potential funding. Individual commission members asked the following of the presenters: • Would they need to involve the Met Council or Metro Transit? Mr. Jacobson wasn’t sure. • Is the Bloomington B-Line still operating? Yes, as a fixed route under the Met Council. • Why do fixed routes when you have Prime Service? Fixed routes are better for densely populated areas and require fewer buses because they are bigger. • Could Edina remove a fixed route and replace it with a Prime Service? Probably not because fixed routes in Edina are controlled by Metro Transit, and secondly, if the route is in place there is a demand for it and you would not want to lose it. Mr. Fyten said Minnetonka is an opt-out city that uses Metro Transit to provide transportation but because they are an opt-out city, they may have more control over their routes. • Does Metro Transit evaluate their routes? Yes said planner Nolan. • How would people find out that Prime Service is available in their community? Initial marketing was done to seniors apartments and then it spread by word-of-mouth; soon they will be marketing to the younger population and will do this by going out to employers, communities, posters, etc.; a survey was done but response rate was extremely low. • Do I have to stand outside and wait for the bus? No, you will receive a notice when the bus is three minutes away. In summary, chair Bass said they need to define what it is they are trying to fulfil and determine if the community is interested in this type of service and what the cost would be. VI. Community Comment – None. VII. Reports/Recommendations VII.A. Traffic Safety Report of Dec. 2, 2015 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 3 A.1. How long would it be until funding is available? Planner Nolan said one to two years. A suggestion was made to identify data that could be used for a more holistic approach to installation, for example, Metro Transit data for ridership, number of children in the neighborhood, etc. A.2. Did staff approved a crosswalk before there was a demonstrated need? Yes, said planner Nolan based on engineering judgment and expected future use. He said the crosswalk may not be installed because it is dependent on Hennepin County’s approval and it is likely they will not approve it. If not approved, the crosswalk 250 ft. to the west at the signalized intersection will be restriped. D.1. The second sentence needs to be edited. Motion was made by member Nelson and seconded by member Iyer to forward the Dec. 2, 2015, Traffic Safety Report to City Council. All voted aye. Motion carried. VIII. Correspondence And Petitions – None. IX. Chair and Member Comments IX.A. Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Chair Bass said the committee met with planner Nolan and traffic safety coordinator Totten and the committee is analyzing three years of data to identify the greatest number of requests, and approval and denial rates. She said they will be drafting a recommendation for the ETC soon. Based on the local circulator discussion with SWT, student member Ding asked if some of buses could be electric to lessen carbon footprint and member Nelson said SWT said they did not have any electric buses at this time because they are very expensive; another low carbon footprint option is compressed natural gas which they also do not have because of facility restriction. Continuing, member Nelson said one feature that helps with customer experience but not carbon footprint, is that the exhaust pipe goes towards the top of the bus and not at ground level. One suggestion was to involve the Energy and Environment Commission as planning moves forward. Member Nelson noted that last month, the ETC was told that residents on Curve Avenue wanted bump- outs but he was told by a resident that there wasn’t consensus. He reiterated the need for a crosswalk on W. 66th Street at Normandale Park, especially given the one that was approved above. Member LaForce thanked member Nelson for attending the 2016 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction public hearing and reminding the City Council that they approved the Living Streets Policy and that aspects of it was featured for the first time in the 2016 Neighborhood Roadway Reconstruction design. X. Staff Comments • The 2016 projects were all approved at the recent public hearing: o Tracy Avenue – Council added two parking bays o Golf Terrace B – Council approved two-sided parking instead of the recommended one- sided; Public Works will plow the Concord Avenue sidewalk; and they asked staff to study an east-west sidewalk on W. 56th Street, Tower Street, or Woodland Road, between Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 4 Concord and Wooddale Avenues. Residents are being surveyed for their input and also taking input from the school district; staff will report back to Council in January. o Strachauer Park A – Council approved two-sided parking instead of the recommended one-sided; Beard Place residents are being surveyed for input on parking. • Interlachen Boulevard Sidewalk Phase 2 is in the 90% design stage and is scheduled for construction in 2016. Dynamic speed signs for Phase 1, west of Oxford Avenue, may not be installed until 2016. • Xerxes Avenue South (W. 56th St. to W. 60th St.) and Vernon Avenue (Gleason Rd. to Blake Rd.) Sidewalks – seeking residents’ input for these sidewalks that are scheduled for 2016. • Oaklawn Avenue (W. 72nd St. to cul-de-sac south of Gilford Dr.) Sidewalk – an input public meeting is scheduled for January and staff is still working with several property owners for an easement. • Grandview Transportation Study – the consultants completed the input sessions and will present again to the ETC in February. • Staff is looking for ideas for a Capstone project; one idea that will be submitted for consideration is to study improvements to the pedestrian bridge over TH-62 to Rosland Park. • Redevelopment projects at W. 66th Street and York Avenue – a project at the old Best Buy site was approved and the developer agreed to pay to remove the free right turn. A second project is coming soon for review. Staff is looking at continuing W. 65th Street thru to Xerxes Avenue and City of Richfield is supportive. This is a long term plan but staff is looking to acquire the easement when possible. • A concept plan is being developed for the Southdale/France Avenue area, including a transportation plan and staff would like the ETC to attend an optional meeting and provide input; date still to be determined. XI. Calendar of Events XI.A. Schedule of Meeting Dates/Events XII. Adjournment at 8:10 p.m. TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ATTENDANCE J F M A M J* J A S O N D SM WS # of Mtgs Attendance % Meetings/Work Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 NAME TERM (Enter Date) 6/17 Bass, Katherine 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Boettge, Emily 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Ding, Emily 9/1/2016 1 1 1 3 75% Iyer, Surya 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 85% LaForce, Tom 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Loeffelholz, Ralf 3/1/2018 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 82% Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: 5 Janovy, Jennifer 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 85% Nelson, Paul 3/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 100% Olson, Larry 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Whited, Courtney 2/1/2015 1 1 100% Spanhake, Dawn 3/1/2017 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 92% Ruehl, Lindsey 9/1/2016 1 1 1 1 4 100% Rummel, Anna 9/1/2015 1 1 1 3 23% Campbell, Jack 9/1/2015 1 1 1 1 4 31% *cancelled Date: January 21, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Proc es s Review Committee Dis cus s ion CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Members of the Traffic Safety P rocess Review Committee met with members of the traffic safety committee (City staff) and wish to have a discussion with the Commission regarding this topic. Additional information provided by the Committee regarding their findings will be sent to commissioners at a later time, prior to the Jan. 21 meeting. Revi sed Jan 21, 2016: Please fi nd attached the Traffi c Safety Process Revi ew Commi ttee's report and be prepared to provi de i nput at the meeti ng. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Proces s Review Committee Report 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 1 Traffic Safety Process Review Committee Report Each year, the City Council approves the ETC work plan. The 2015 Council-approved work plan included “Review and recommend modifications to Traffic Safety Request process.” At the October 2015 ETC meeting, the ETC formed a committee to make progress on this work plan item by the end of the year. Committee members were Katherine Bass, Jennifer Janovy and Ralf Loffelholz. The ETC holds accountability for making recommendations that help to advance and implement Living Streets. Sometimes, the ETC recommends updates to City code or policy. Sometimes, the ETC recommends process improvements. An example of the latter is the ETC’s work earlier this year to recommend revisions to the neighborhood street reconstruction survey so that the survey can be a useful tool in advancing the implementation of Living Streets. In a similar way, the Traffic Safety process holds great potential for helping communicate the Living Streets vision to residents and advancing Living Streets implementation. It is through the lens of Living Streets implementation that the committee viewed its task. Issues/Perceptions at start • Integration of Living Streets vision • High number of requests denied; process not always clear for requesters • Requesters and committee view “problem” through different lenses • Traffic Safety Committee scope of responsibilities not formally defined • Presentation of information in reports varies widely Committee Process • Drafted scope of our work • Met with Traffic Safety Committee • Created data input tool and entered data from three years of Traffic Safety Committee Reports • Met with Mark Nolan and Joe Totten • Analyzed data • Drafted report and initial recommendations 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 2 • Presented draft report and recommendations to ETC Data Findings • 155 entries (sections A and B of reports) • 62.5% related to intersections; 32.9% to roads • Excessive speed is main concern, followed by parked or queued cars obstructing, difficult to cross street as pedestrian, not safe for pedestrians, and no crosswalk • 22.8% requested stop sign; 22.1% requested other type of traffic sign; 12.8% asked for traffic calming; 11.4% asked for crosswalk; 11.4% asked for parking restriction • Request approved 36.5% of the time • Request denied 52.7% of the time • Main reasons for denying requests: did not meet warrants and committee did not find a safety issue Recommendations Recommendation #1: Integrate Living Streets Vision The Traffic Safety Committee is comprised of staff from Engineering, Public Works, Planning and Police. The Living Streets policy, adopted by the City Council in 2013, states “All City departments will support the vision and principles outlined in the Policy in their work.” The Policy outlined steps that needed to be taken to fully integrate and implement the Living Streets vision. These steps included: o Communicate this Policy to residents and other stakeholders; educate and engage on an ongoing basis; o Update City ordinances, engineering standards, policies and guidelines to agree with this Policy; 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 3 o Inventory building and zoning codes to bring these into agreement with Living Streets principles as established by this Policy; o Update and document maintenance policies and practices to support Policy goals; and o Update and document enforcement policies and practices to support Policy goals. The Living Streets Policy was revised when it was included in the Living Streets Plan. The revision eliminated these additional implementation steps. The value of having an inter-disciplinary committee review traffic safety concerns is that each member brings the experience, knowledge and resources of their department or of their particular role. If the Living Streets vision has been integrated into the policies and practices of each department, then each member will bring that integrated perspective to the Traffic Safety Committee. Our committee believes that the Traffic Safety Committee plays a vital role in helping to implement Living Streets and so strongly recommends that the above listed implementation steps be re-inserted into the Living Streets Policy and that these steps be prioritized and completed. Recommendation #2: Define Scope of Responsibilities The Traffic Safety Committee originated at a time when our principal focus as a community was on motor vehicles and “traffic safety” concerns were viewed through that lens. Then, as our community desires for multimodal transportation and safety increased, and our vision changed (Living Streets), the process evolved in an organic, not intentional, way. As it stands today, the current scope of work and role of the Traffic Safety Committee is not formally defined. The heading “traffic safety” encompasses a wide 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 4 range of issues—in current practice, any traffic or transportation-related request for improved motorist, pedestrian or bicyclist safety anywhere within the public right-of- way or city-owned transportation facilities. This has frequently included requests for maintenance, construction or referrals to enforcement. Our committee discussed whether the current scope as practiced is appropriate or too expansive, and whether the name “Traffic Safety Committee” sufficiently communicates its role. There was agreement that, however the Traffic Safety Committee is ultimately defined, that definition must be aligned with Living Streets. In its work, the existing Traffic Safety Committee is – in words and actions – in a position to communicate and implement the Living Streets policy priorities. Recommendation #3: Develop a Focused Approach to Neighborhood Speed Concerns Concerns about motor vehicle speeds represent the largest percentage of traffic safety requests. The speed limit on most Edina streets is 30 mph, and the “average speeding ticket” is written for FIND mph over the speed limit. When speed data is gathered, the 85th percentile speed is used to determine whether there is a speeding issue. From this perspective, there rarely is. As a result, requests related to speed concerns (including stop sign requests) are frequently denied. The speed limit, enforcement speed, and 85th percentile speed are not good measurements for determining whether there is a speed issue from either a residents’ or Living Streets perspective. An effective approach to addressing neighborhood speed concerns will set a lower speed threshold (target speed) and draw from a toolbox of specifically defined practices (5 E’s) to influence motorist behavior to slow down. 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 5 The potential to reduce the number of Traffic Safety requests by more effectively addressing speed concerns is significant. Recommendation #4: Standardize Intake Traffic Safety requests are submitted in various forms. Some requesters ask for solution (to be defined) to a general problem (such as “intersection feels unsafe”). Some specify a problem (no stop sign) and request a specific solution (add stop sign). A standard intake tool (survey) should be developed to focus the information that is gathered on the problem as the requester sees it, and not on the solution. By asking specific questions, from a multimodal perspective (similar to the neighborhood street reconstruction survey), both the requester and the city can gain a more complete understanding of the issue. Currently, a request can be sent in via email, made over the phone, or submitted through the Edina to Go app. The intake tool should be used across all platforms to ensure consistency in the information collected. Recommendation #5: Strengthen the Link Between Problem, Data, Analysis, and Recommendation In reviewing reports, the committee noted that often there was not a clear link between the problem, the data gathered to investigate the problem, analysis of the data (application of warrants, etc.), and the resulting recommendation. This suggests two improvements are needed: 1. More clearly define the process for responding to requests and offer maximum transparency to residents for how requests are handled. A process 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 6 flow chart, the data sources, policies and standards that are referenced for handling requests should all be shared on the city’s website. 2. Develop a standard format for presenting information in reports. Recommendation #6: Track Data on Requests and Provide Annual Report to the City Council This will help to identify trends and inform city plans and budgeting. Recommendation #7: Evaluate Resident Satisfaction The committee recommends identifying a question(s) on the city’s Quality of Life survey that would provide benchmarking data to inform how well the city is addressing Living Streets implementation. In an effort to provide excellent service, the committee also recommends sending a short annual survey to anyone who has submitted a request in the calendar year, for example. The survey would not evaluate satisfaction with the outcome, but rather the experience of the process (e.g., Was the process clear? Was the decision communicated to you effectively?). This will help to identify where the process is working and where it needs improvement. Recommendation #8: Make Traffic Safety Coordinator Position Full Time Consider increasing Traffic Safety Coordinator to full time. The recommendations to standardize intake of requests and evaluate process effectiveness are only as good as the synthesis, analysis and reporting of this information over time. This represents an increase in the work load of staff, and we feel it would contribute greatly to increased resident satisfaction with the process. Further, the Traffic Safety Coordinator’s tasks directly benefit the EPD, as many of the requests and phone calls fielded relate to neighborhood traffic concerns. The TSC coordinator is acting as a 1/20/2016 DRAFT 2 7 community liaison in the role, and the police department is a beneficiary of those interactions. Recommendation #9: Do Not Limit Repeat Requests at This Time In the committee’s review, we found only a small number of repeat requests. It is possible that some repeat requests were underreported, as the Traffic Safety Coordinator might have successfully redirected requestors. In that case, the standardized intake would help the city track repeat requests over time and might, in time, build the evidence base for limiting repeat requests in the future. Make recommended changes to process and see if it reduces number of repeat requests. Next steps: • Seeking feedback from ETC • Present to Traffic Safety Committee for feedback • Revise report • Present revised report to ETC • Submit report to City Council Date: January 21, 2016 Agenda Item #: VI.B. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: R ep o rt and Rec o mmendation From:Jo s ep h Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator Item Activity: Subject:Traffic Safety Report of January 6, 2016 Action CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: Review and recommend the Traffic Safety Report of Wednesday January 6, 2016 be forwarded to City Council for approval. INTRODUCTION: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the meeting. An overview of the comments from the Edina Transportation Commission (ET C) will be included in the staff report provided to Council for their February 17, 2016 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Safety Report of January 6, 2016 The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) review of traffic safety matters occurred on January 06. The City Engineer, Assistant City Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator, Transportation Planner and Police Lieutenant were in attendance for this meeting. For these reviews, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, these comments can be included on the January 21 Edina Transportation Commission and the February 17 City Council meeting agendas. Section A : Items on which staff recommends action A1. Request for crosswalk across Division Street at Rutledge Avenue or further control at the intersection This request comes from neighbors near Todd Park who have several concerns on Division Street traffic in the neighborhood, especially cutting off access for the southern part of the neighborhood to Todd Park. There already exist stop signs for northern and southern approaches, of Rutledge Avenue into the intersection, leaving Division Street uncontrolled. Rutledge is a local street in the comprehensive plan, while Division Street is classified as a local connector. In a 2014 speed study at the site, Division Street was seen as having an ADT of 615 and an 85th-percentile speed of 29.2 mph near this intersection. Saturday was seen as comparable with an ADT of 583 and the same 85th-percentile speed. A video study taken this fall was analyzed and found that in a two hour period on Saturday from 3:30-5:30 PM 25 pedestrians crossed Division Street. Of these 25 crossings 18 pedestrians used the west side of the intersection to cross. Vehicle counts were not taken on Rutledge January 21, 2016 Edina Transportation Commission Joe Totten, Traffic Safety Coordinator Traffic Safety Report of January 06, 2016 Information / Background: Map : Division Street and Rutledge Avenue, Todd Park is northwest of the intersection. Traffic Safety Preview of Jan. 06, 2016 Page 2 Street, and these were not tabulated because no weekday was studied for 24 hours, however Division Street has the major approaches at this intersection. No crashes have been reported in this location in the last five years. After review, staff recommends that a crosswalk be placed on the west side of this intersection, across Division Street. The alternate request for further intersection control is not recommended at this time due to a lack of warrants, or other evidence of a dangerous situation. A2. Request for further signage of the turn lanes at Hazelton Road and France Avenue This request concerns Hazelton Road, westbound at France Avenue. The single lane roadway expands to three lanes as it approaches the intersection and the rightmost and leftmost lanes are marked as right and left turn only, respectively. The requestor was concerned that persons turning from the center, unmarked lane were confused and did not know that lane was reserved for straight through traffic. Since Hazelton has been rebuilt no crashes involving left turns on Hazelton, related to this issue, have been observed. The signage plans for the site have a sign which shows the lane assignments for the entire approach, and did reserve the center lane for through movements. After review, staff recommends placing a plaque detailing intersection lane assignments beneath the no parking sign prior to the added auxiliary lanes. Section C : Items which staff recommends for further study C1. Request for more “No Parking” signs on Gorgas Avenue This request concerns parking concerns on Gorgas Avenue which was restricted to one sided parking in the 2015 reconstruction of the Arden Park ‘D’ neighborhood. This request concerns the idea that there are too few signs on the west side of the street, where parking is restricted. There exist only 3 signs on this side of the block, having approximately 450 feet marked as no parking. According to the MUTCD Section 2A.13 states that one inch of character height provides approximately thirty feet of legibility, and indicates minimum sign sizes of 12”x12” and 18”x18” respectively. The letter ‘P’ portion of the no parking symbol is slightly less than half the height of the sign. The signs in this Photo : Division Street at Rutledge Avenue, looking west. Map : France Avenue and Hazelton Road Photo : Hazelton Road at France Avenue, looking west Photo : The west side of Gorgas Avenue, looking south Traffic Safety Preview of Jan. 06, 2016 Page 3 neighborhood are 12” square, making the ‘P’ of the no parking symbols less than 6” tall, and legible for less than 180 feet. After review, staff recommends that this issue be revisited after the Arden Park parking study is completed later this year, and direction based on that data may be provided by City Council, and the Edina Transportation Commission. Section D : Other items handled by traffic safety D1. From the manager of the Maker’s Mark Café, a request was fielded to investigate the Pentagon Park signal for their parking lot onto 77th Street. The signal cabinet was opened and it was found that the signal was functioning properly, but recently the City reached an agreement with MnDOT for them to time this signal such as to create a coordinated system from Metro Boulevard to Computer Avenue. Discussions are ongoing on how to best coordinate the signals, as the signals do not communicate with each other at this time. D2. A request was received for the striping of the exit from Trunk Highway 100, southbound onto 70th Street to be examined, as the current merge takes too long to adequately allow for further merging into right turn lanes. The requestor was given information on who to call at the State of Minnesota’s MnDOT Metro Office to have the situation evaluated. D3. A requestor asked for signal coordination on 50th Street from France Avenue to the west end of the Grandview Area. In discussions with Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis, there were seen that four different governments controlled signals along that stretch of roadway. While trying to see if further coordination was feasible or possible, the requestor called back noting that the lights were consistently acting as if they were well coordinated and that in the last few months since the request was submitted rarely had the requestor hit more than two red lights along the stretch, and asked for his request to be closed. It is unknown if any further signal coordination was done by MnDOT, the City of Minneapolis, or Hennepin County. D4. A requestor noted that a vehicle had been driving extremely aggressively in a neighborhood, and believed this was due to a stop sign being obscured by unloading construction equipment parked within 30’ of the intersection. A site visit immediately after the call had no equipment or loading equipment on the roadway, and the contractor claims to maintain thirty feet of clear view from controlled intersections. D5. A resident was unhappy with drivers using the turnaround at the end of the resident’s cul-de-sac as a turnaround, alleging 20 vehicles a day use the cul-de-sac to turnaround. The requestor continued to note that having paid a large assessment on street construction that only the residents should have access to the road, and should be able to prevent others from using the public street. The resident was informed that the street is public and can be used by the public. D6. A resident was moving to a new residence and wanted traffic data on 56th Street to determine if the family should continue to consider a home on a more heavily traveled roadway. Daily traffic volumes and 85th-percentile speeds were provided for the road in question. Traffic Safety Preview of Jan. 06, 2016 Page 4 Appendix A: Crosswalk Warrants A. Marked crosswalks are placed at locations that are unusually hazardous or at locations not readily apparent as having pedestrian movement. B. Marked crosswalks will only be placed in an area that has 20 or more pedestrian crossings in a two- hour period. C. Marking for crosswalks will be established by measuring the “Vehicle Gap Time”. This is the total number of gaps between vehicular traffic recorded during the average five minute period in the peak hour. Criteria for markings are: 1) More than five gaps – pavement marking and signage only. 2) Less than five gaps – add actuated pedestrian signals. D. Crosswalks will not be placed on arterial roads or roads with a speed limit greater than 30 mph unless in conjunction with signalization. E. Other conditions that warrant crosswalks: 1) Routes to schools 2) Locations adjacent to libraries, community centers, and other high use public facilities. 3) Locations adjacent to public parks. 4) Locations where significant numbers of handicapped persons cross a street. 5) Locations where significant numbers of senior citizens cross a street. F. Crosswalks will only be placed at intersections. Traffic Safety Preview of Jan. 06, 2016 Page 5 Appendix B: Stop Sign Warrants When it is determined that a full stop is always required on an approach to an intersection a STOP (R1-1) sign shall be used. At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs. The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions: A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway. C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction with the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users from the minor street failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway. Additional warrants which do not specify the type of control are as follows; A. An intersection of a less important road with a main road where application of the normal right-of way rule would not be expected to provide reasonable compliance with the law; B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or C. An un-signalized intersection in a signalized area. In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more the 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Additional warrants from the city of Edina list that: 1. If an intersection experiences five (5) or more right angle accidents in a three (3) year period, stop signs should be considered. 2. If the presence of a sight obstruction is contributing to accidents at an intersection, removal of the sight obstruction should be sought before considering a stop sign. 3. If the 85th percentile speed on any leg of an intersection is more than five (5) MPH over the posted speed limit, a stop sign should be considered for the intersecting street. 4. If traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day on each of the intersecting streets, stop signs should be considered. 5. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control speed. 6. Residential stop signs shall not be installed in an attempt to control volume. Date: January 21, 2016 Agenda Item #: VIII.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Pro p o s ed S tand ing Item: 2016 Work P lan Updates Disc ussio n CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Several Edina Boards and Commissions have a standing item in their "Reports/Recommendations" section where commissioners give updates on current Board/Commission work plan items. Staff, along with Chair Bass, are recommending that the ET C does the same. Visiting this item each month will allow the Commission to track work plan progress, and to keep focused on what is most important to the Commission. In the future, when annual work plans are being drafted, each work plan initiative will have one ET C member as its "champion." He/she will give the update on that item each month (understanding that some work plan items will have no update on a given month). At this month's ET C meeting, Chair Bass will be asking for volunteers to "champion" each 2016 work plan initiative moving forward. For your convenience, I have listed them below. 2016 Wo rk Plan Initiatives 1. Study and report Community Circulator. 2. Organize and host a transportation-themed event with speaker(s). 3. P repare and comment on Comprehensive P edestrian and Bicycle P lan for inclusion in 2018 Comprehensive P lan. 4. Review Edina To Go app and provide recommendations to staff regarding organization/categories for reporting concerns related to streets/transportation. 5. Review data from City’s Quality of Life Survey (2011, 2013, 2015) and conduct 2 public meetings to identify gaps around the City’s transportation systems. 6. Make recommendations to staff for evaluation of the Living Streets and Streets Smarts outreach campaigns. 7. P rovide input to staff on the creation of a walking map of the City indicating routes and areas of interest. Date: January 21, 2016 Agenda Item #: IX.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Staff Comments fo r January 2016 Information CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: Staff will update the ET C on the following topics: Golf Terrace B Sidewalks (2016) Oaklawn Avenue Sidewalk (2017 - south of W 72nd St) Grandview District Transportation Study Southdale France Avenue Area P lanning P rocess Date: January 21, 2016 Agenda Item #: X.A. To:Trans portation Co mmis s io n Item Type: Other From:Mark K. Nolan, AICP, Trans p o rtation P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Sc hed ule o f Meeting and Event Dates Info rmatio n CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov ACTION REQUESTED: None. INTRODUCTION: T hursday January 21: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COUNCIL CHAMBERS T hursday February 18: ET C Annual Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM T hursday March 17: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM T hursday April 21: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COUNCIL CHAMBERS T hursday May 19: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM T hursday June 16: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM T hursday July 21: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COUNCIL CHAMBERS T hursday August 18: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM T hursday September 15: Regular ET C Meeting - 6:00 P M, COMMUNIT Y ROOM T hursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursdayThursday T hursdayThursday T hursday